decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO Files Another Motion to Compel in IBM Litigation
Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 09:46 PM EST

SCO has filed a Motion to Compel in the SCO v. IBM case. So what else is new? When *doesn't* SCO file a motion to compel in the SCO v. IBM litigation? No matter how many they lose, they just keep filing them. Remember at the last hearing IBM's Todd Shaughnessy mentioning that addiction to motions?

So, here we go again. Here's the Motion to Compel [PDF], which in its just-filed letter to the Red Hat judge it described like this:

On December 29, 2005, SCO filed its Motion to Compel certain discovery and 30(b)(6) witnesses, including numerous categories of damages-related materials, documents concerning Project Monterey, documents related to IBM's ongoing Linux activities, and all versions of AIX from 1985 to 1990.

We'll get the Red Hat letter up in a few minutes. If you've forgotten what a 30(b)(6) witness is, go here.

It's clear how SCO's lawyers spent the holidays, working for real, because they are filing motions in the two active cases. Here's the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel [PDF]. They say they need more space, 25 pages instead of 10. The memorandum itself is filed under seal.

There is also an attorney's declaration, Declaration of Mark F. James in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, also marked filed under seal, which lists lots of exhibits filed as paper documents. The document is available on Pacer but I won't put it up here until I can clarify if they goofed in making it available.

But here are the two motions as text, thanks to Steve Martin. As you will see, SCO is trying very hard not to let the public in on whatever it is they are asking for in this motion. All we know is SCO wants IBM to produce some documents and some witnesses, as SCO puts it, "seven separate categories of highly relevant damages related documents, three separate categories of other highly relevant documents and four separate categories of testimony from corporate representatives."

Don't worry. It all comes out in the wash eventually, as you've seen over and over in this litigation, so whatever they are asking for, we'll find out in due time, I'm sure.

********************************

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

(ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)

Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel, respectfully moves this Court for an Order compelling Defendant International Business

1

Machines Corporation ("IBM") to produce certain discovery and Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses described in the Memorandum.

Dated this 29th day of December, 2005.

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand

By (signature of Mark F. James)

Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Motion to Compel was served by mail on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on the 29th day of December, 2005, by U.S. Mail to:

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[address]

(signature of Mark F. James)

3

********************************

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE OVERLENGTH
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), hereby moves this Court for permission to file an overlength Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Compel SCO seeks to file a Memorandum of 25 pages in length exclusive of cover sheet and table of contents and authorities rather than the 10 pages ordinarily permitted. SCO requires the extra length for

1

the following reasons. SCO's Motion addresses numerous deficiencies in Defendant International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM") production of discovery materials in this litigation. Because of IBM's failures, SCO has been forced to move to compel the production of seven separate categories of highly relevant damages related documents, three separate categories of other highly relevant documents and four separate categories of testimony from corporate representatives. It is impossible to discuss each of these fourteen separate categories of required evidence within the ten page limit. SCO, therefore respectfully requests permission to file an overlength Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel.

Dated this 29th day of December, 2005.

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand

By (signature of Mark F. James)

Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Overlength Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel was served by mail on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on the 29th day of December, 2005, by U.S. Mail to:

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[address]

(signature of Mark F. James)

3


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )